User talk:EagleEye96
Welcome to Wikipedia
[edit]Welcome!
Hello, EagleEye96, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - 2/0 (cont.) 21:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
ZRTP
[edit]Please don't keep inserting the speculation about the meaning of ZRTP into WP articles. I have never heard PRZ make the claim, or even any of the software developers involved, that the Z stands for his last name. The primary sources, e.g., the RFC draft, also do not define the meaning of the term, so therefore it should not be expanded into anything. Kbrose (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- "ZRTP" most definitely is perceived by most as an acronym, and it raises the question what it stands for. ZRTP is commonly understood to stand for "Zimmermann RTP", since Zimmermann is the main contributor of the ZRTP specification. Therefore, this assumption about the origin of the acronym should be mentioned in the article.--EagleEye96 (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, it is speculation and should not be mentioned. WP is not a place to originate rumors. Please read the article editing guidelines. What dubious, unreferenced sources perceive is not fact. There is no causal relationship. Who are these entities that "commonly understand" something? Never heard anyone refer to it that way. There are other possible association of the Z, but they are just as wrong. Your quotation of the VON article, which does not make the statement either, shows that you haven't even read that to ascertain proper support. From a technical point of view the decomposition would appear wrong as well, as it is not a special version of RTP. Kbrose (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- If the Z doesn't indeed stand for Zimmermann, I believe that is good to mention in the article to avoid the misunderstandings that I also made. The "entities" that claim the origin of Z are organizations, which I wouldn't without a doubt count as reliable sources, such as "SearchUnifiedCommunications.com Definitions".
- The referenced VON-article says in p.19: "Zimmermann: [...] ZRTP protocol, which I have implemented in an SDK", which is not a clear claim, but a statement that could make one assume that the Z stands for Zimmermann.
- I admit, that I made unjustified assumptions when I did my addition. To avoid these assumptions, I suggest, we add the statement that ZRTP does NOT stand for anything particular. If we won't do it, I believe many will make the same assumptions as I did.--EagleEye96 (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- WP is not the place to give advice what people should think or shouldn't. In your addition, you once again gave advice as to the term, this time what people should not do. People will make up their mind no matter what is written here, especially given the dubious image of WP, there is no need to fuel additional speculation. Kbrose (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Most importantly, article now mentions the explanation of the name, which I personally consider important. If this information would not be in WP, I believe, people would try to search any other site for the explanation of the capital letters, and come to wrong conclusion of the meaning.--EagleEye96 (talk) 07:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- WP is not the place to give advice what people should think or shouldn't. In your addition, you once again gave advice as to the term, this time what people should not do. People will make up their mind no matter what is written here, especially given the dubious image of WP, there is no need to fuel additional speculation. Kbrose (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, it is speculation and should not be mentioned. WP is not a place to originate rumors. Please read the article editing guidelines. What dubious, unreferenced sources perceive is not fact. There is no causal relationship. Who are these entities that "commonly understand" something? Never heard anyone refer to it that way. There are other possible association of the Z, but they are just as wrong. Your quotation of the VON article, which does not make the statement either, shows that you haven't even read that to ascertain proper support. From a technical point of view the decomposition would appear wrong as well, as it is not a special version of RTP. Kbrose (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, this is Phil Zimmermann. Let me clear this up-- the origin of the name ZRTP is explained on the FAQ page of the Zfone.com web site (http://zfone.com/faq.html#zrtpacronym). Alan Johnston came up with the name ZRTP, and yes, Z stands for Zimmermann. The RTP part is because in the first couple of drafts of the ZRTP spec, ZRTP messages were encoded in RTP header extensions, making them a variant of RTP. Later, the syntax changed to make ZRTP packets syntactically distinguishable from RTP, which means that ZRTP is now a pseudo-acronym. I wish I had put this in the ZRTP draft, but I don't think the RFC editors will let me add it at this late date. I just added this to the WP article on ZRTP (19 Feb 2011). -- (user:prz)